You are skipping over the mathematical reality here. There is nothing to give anyone without the presence of 'investors', period. If a service on Steem doesn't bring in investors then it is basically just something that causes the value of Steem to drop - there is no way around that. This is part of the understanding behind @oracle-d for example and why @ned stated that he wants more platforms to think in that way (and why Oracle D has a 2 million delegation).

You have no problems with accepting anything they give because you see anything as a bonus. Thats what they want you believe

Erm.. I don't really believe anything - I am speaking from the experience of 12+ years of content creation. Sure, I am here to receive rewards and I am also here because the system is uncensored (relatively). I am currently of the understanding that I stand to earn more and the platform stands to grow more as a result of the price of Steem going up, which could possibly be more likely to occur if curation payouts are increased. Maybe not, I don't know for sure. I am not in some kind of battle here - this is all an experiment. My own content is of the kind that is intended to help the world - I don't really need to be paid for it, but I do appreciate when I am.

I think that if investors have come here thinking that they have a sure investment on their hands.... they came in with the wrong mentality.

Sure, but they are going to do whatever they can to maximise their returns.

Now you - are in essence - saying - "give more of my rewards to them to make them happy. Not just my rewards - give more of EVERYONE'S rewards to make them happy."

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that they will find ways to extract the money regardless of the split of rewards.

If I make less money then I could do more curation. Do I have time for that? Not really at the moment. However, if curation does become as much of a rewarding process as authoring, then maybe I would make more time for it - which should really help the platform grow.